Person-Centered Risk Assessment Framework: Assessing and Managing Risk in Older Adults Living With Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study pilot-tested the person-centered risk assessment framework (PCRAF), a framework for managing risk among persons living with dementia (PLWD) in primary care. METHODS: Healthcare providers (N = 7) piloting the PCRAF completed a survey, rating their satisfaction with the tool, and an interview to gather their perceptions of the PCRAF. PLWD and care partners (N = 12) completed a survey, rating their satisfaction with safety planning. RESULTS: Care providers were very satisfied with the tool; however, patient or care partner inability to perceive or understand safety risks was a challenge. Use of the PCRAF was perceived as an opportunity to empower self-management, gather PLWD and care partner perspectives, reduce burden for care partners and increase understanding of potential risks. Patients and care partners were very satisfied with the way in which they were included in the risk discussion. CONCLUSION: The PCRAF is a promising new tool to reduce risks associated with dementia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".